I've known Mia Farrow for years, I try to be kind here. During the Bully Boy Bush years when she was screaming for war on Darfur, I tried to draw the same line I'd drawn with her on abortion: We can disagree.

Mia, for those who don't know, is hugely, vastly anti-choice. To the point that she's honestly become a bigot on the subject. But I look the other way.

I'm tired of looking the other way.

'The flower child' never was. Flower children weren't married to elderly millionaires the way Mia was to Frank.

Watching Husbands and Wives, the last film Mia made with Woody Allen, was very hard to do. Not just because Judy Davis walked away with the movie and what scenes she didn't steal Sydney Pollack did. Mia was a drab little mouse. Who somehow, someway, got all the men in the world to leave whomever for her.

In other words, with Husbands and Wives, Woody finally wrote about the real Mia.

Realizing that wasn't the most uncomfortable thing.

Watching the film and realizing that Mia was so desperate that she would play this true but insulting version of herself made me very uncomfortable.

This is a woman who was obviously desperate to hang on to a relationship that was ending.

Watch the film and you'll see it all there -- and I've only seen the film once, it was too difficult to sit through that one time.

They were supposed to make Manhattan Murder Mystery together, Woody and Mia.

They didn't.

Though she was willing to make the film, Woody didn't want to make it with her. She had discovered his affair with Soon Yi-Previn. And Woody was moving on.

Woody and Mia had --

I don't know how to write this. This is why I'm writing it. Mia's being a fraud and a fake and I just don't have the time.

Woody and Mia are the parents of Satchel Farrow who now calls himself Ronan. (He was named after some baseball player -- I'm not a sports buff but Mia was more than fine with going along with Woody on the name.) Then there's Dylan who's also been Eliza and Malone and who knows what name she'll take next -- we'll just call her Dylan for this piece. Dylan and Moses were adopted. Mia wanted Woody to be the legal father of the two.

Then it was a nightmare when she found out Woody and Soon-Yi were a couple.

At this point, suddenly comes an announcement that Dylan's been molested by Woody.

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should
know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and
led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house.
He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric
train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did
it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret,
promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I
remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its
circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at
toy trains.

Here's the thing, when Dylan was a child and her story never made sense? I didn't doubt it. I stopped seeing Woody's films. I had a number of them on VHS -- remember those days? -- and I'd still pop in Broadway Danny Rose or Sleeper or Love and Death. But I didn't question Dylan, I didn't question the narrative.

I was Mia's friend.

But here's the thing, Dylan. Your story makes no sense.

It doesn't in your letter and it hasn't over the years and, frankly, I'm bored to death with it.

Here's another little detail: I was sexually molested as a child.

He stuck his finger in me and that hurt and didn't apparently please him so he focused on his penis from then on. I was made to touch his penis, he smeared it against my face and pulled my hair until I opened my mouth and sucked him off. He was sleepy then, after he came. I used that moment to grab the dinner knife and stab him like a stuck pig -- repeatedly -- before fleeing the motel room, attempting to figure out where he had taken me and how I was going to get home.

People respond differently to abuse.

But why is it that in all the years she's told her tale, I've never believed it?

Especially the statement (which sounds like Mia, not like a 7-year-old) that Woody told her he would take her to Paris and make her a movie star?

Maybe he said it but he's never said that to women he's wooed so why the hell would he say it to a seven-year-old child?

Wouldn't he be more likely to offer toys or ice cream?

Who thinks like that besides Mia who always dreamed of Paris as a child. Woops. Did we all forget that detail?

Why is that she doesn't speak in any of the many ways that survivors of abuse speak?

She's had therapy.

But even now, she's designing some story, she's creating some acting 'moment' and it never rings true and the wrong things are detailed, the wrong things are emphasized.

Now maybe Dylan was molested -- maybe by her Uncle John.

That's Mia's brother who is now behind bars for sexually molesting several children.

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier, sexual molestation is a pattern. It's not a one-time thing.

Maybe Uncle John was the molester?

If anything happened.

I've been online nine years and never felt the need (or had the desire) to note at this site that I was molested as a child.

I long ago learned not to share it because I learned how many other people were sexually molested as children. And I can't help everyone, I'm sorry.

Right before Dylan's alleged assault, was the last time I ever spoke of it in a semi-public setting. I was at a friend's home overlooking the ocean, at a table with a friend who wanted me to share to a mutual friend because she'd just found out her boyfriend had sexually molested her child. The woman felt tremendous guilt and much more but she was mainly concerned with what that meant for her daughter. So I opened up a vein and talked about it. Noting. for example, that you can live through it, you can put it semi-behind you, it does effect you in other ways, some good, some bad. Blah blah blah. (Sorry, I'm not in the mood to open a vein tonight.) So we finish up that conversation and I'm thinking great, hopefully it helped her, I'm going to go shopping and find books and music and other things to distract me for the rest of the day.

Then ______ calls my mobile phone (that's what we had before cell phones). We know each other loosely. At the time, he's an up and coming actor on a top twenty TV show. We had nodded to one another at the party but I was, obviously, focused on other things and hadn't exchanged any words. He wants to meet up to talk. I'm headed home. Great, can he come over?

He stays for a month and a half.

I'm not insulting him in any way with these comments.

As soon as he sits down he starts shaking and explaining that he heard the discussion at the party and he was -- and he was -- and he was --

He's crying and gulping -- not gasping -- for air.

Molested?

By your mother?

He can only nod to what I'm asking.

I can always tell who was molested by a parent -- and which parent -- and who was molested by a relative, who was molested by a trusted non-family figure and who was molested by a stranger.

Elaine loves to tell -- I believe she's blogged on this twice at her site -- about when she was dating Dr. ____ who was a clinical director at a youth residential treatment center and she was asked to consult on something at the last minute and does she dump her friend in from out of town or does she leave her boyfriend in a fix? I tell her I'll tag along and busy myself in some way while she takes all the time she needs to do the consultation.

And then I'm waiting and some man (I didn't know these people, it was a doctor) starts talking to me and at some point wants me to look at a piece of artwork by a teenager. It's a pencil and paper sketch.

Detailed.

I look at it and start to hand it back saying it's interesting but then I start picking apart the details, whoever drew identifies with the person in the sketch, they're on the roof, they're closer to the edge of the roof, there's something they've said that they regret, a they're hiding something, they're hiding something from their parents, it's a boy, a boy drew this, he's -- he's gay and he's in the closet., he's gay and he's in the closet and he's got a boyfriend but he's saying the boyfriend raped him, he's saying that because of the parents and because of --

And I went on like that about the drawing for about 8 minutes.

And the concern that man had?

I didn't know it when I was evaluating the drawing but the boy who drew that picture was saying that his male roommate raped him. Turns out, they had consensual sex. It was easier to say rape for that young male than to say, "I'm gay."

That was all in the drawing, it was in the heavy pencil marks, it was in the light pencil marks, it was in the shading and the position and the point of view. All the signs were there if you knew how to see them.

I'm often accused of being psychic but I'm not. I just know the signs.

And whenever I speak of being molested, to a woman's group or a group of friends, someone always comes forward. They've sat on it for years and now they want to talk and now they want help. And they also want me as a sounding board or mentor or shoulder to lean on. Maybe because my message is that it didn't destroy me?

For four weeks, I went to the set with the TV friend every morning. I helped him find a doctor who could address his issues. (This should be obvious, but maybe just to those of us who have been molested, the six weeks he was living in my home, he had his own bedroom, we did not have a sexual relationship.) After the four weeks, he worked a little at transitioning back to his own place. When, months later, he and his doctor were planning the session where he was going to confront his mother, he moved back into a guest room and probably stayed a week before the confrontation and at least two weeks after.

I'm not a nice person, I don't claim to be. I'm not a saint. I need my sleep when I can get it. (I got three hours of sleep early Friday morning and haven't been to sleep since. I can't take the nightmares right now -- of Iraq and all the violence -- that video of the military just standing there while the Sunni man was being burned alive . . .)

Talking about the subject can help others. I know that. If I feel the calling, if I feel someone needs me to bring it up, I will. But my life is very full and I don't have time to try to help everyone. Again, I'm not a nice person, I don't pretend to be.

As I have many times in the many years I've lived, I helped someone who needed help on this issue -- in part because who knows how much my own sharing -- whether to them or overheard -- acted as a catalyst. And as a result -- again, I'm no saint -- I try to be very careful around this topic. It is not something that everyone who knows me knows because I don't make it a point of daily conversation. Jim, for example, is going to read this and think, "We're best friends. Dona and I lived with her for several years and I never knew this." And Jim and I have been friends now for a decade and shared many stories of our lives -- good and bad -- but there's never been a reason to bring this up.

Along with not having time today to 'mentor' or whatever people like my TV friend, it's also true that I love drama on the screen, I love on drama on the stage, but I don't care for drama in my home. It bores me real damn quick.

And now we have Dylan providing us with drama.

When I see drama, if it's from someone who's been molested or raped, I can be understanding -- even me. But I can do that because I can see the trigger.

It happened to you at ____ so ___ reminds you of it. He/Her name was ____ so the fact that you are now working with someone named ____ is bringing up those issues. The incident occurred in ____ and it's now that time of the year.

I'm sorry, what's the triggering incident for Dylan that's caused these two or so months of drama.

It's not the season or the month because the alleged events didn't happen in winter.

So what is it?

Some might say it's him being honored but he's been honored for the last decades.

Here's the reality, I don't believe it anymore. I'm not going to pretend I do. The need to turn this into a public spectacle, an embarrassing piece of trash -- I'm referring to all the events, not just Dylan?

I don't believe it. I think more people are starting to disbelieve as well.

Dylan may have been molested.

She may even have been molested by Woody.

But I don't believe it anymore.

I don't know what happened and I'm not going to take the word of someone who is clearly being dishonest -- I mean Dylan. I think she's being dishonest but I don't know why.

And thing is, I don't give a damn why.

I've had quite enough of this trashy spectacle.

Mia embarrasses herself, her dead parents and a widow by claiming that Ronan might be Frank Sinatra's child.

Might he be?

If so, Mia's lied to friends for years and years.

And she also lied to Woody.

I don't like Barbara Sinatra. I'm friends with Nancy and I think it's known the two don't get along (and didn't when Frank Sinatra was alive).

But Barbara is his widow.

And I don't know why you would toss out that someone's dead husband might be the father of your adult child.

How the f**k does that become a topic of conversation for an interview?

How damn trashy are you now, Mia?

How desperate for attention are you?

As I noted, it was hard to watch Husbands and Wives because Woody had captured, in the character he wrote for her, every negative aspect people had ever noted of Mia. The manipulation, the home wrecking, all of it was there. And she was willing to play it.

Dylan thinks she can throw out an appeal, "I was wronged! Believe me!"

Why?

What have you done to be truthful?

You're supposed to be a victim of molestation.

Well, here's one thing a victim might do: Talk about abusers -- especially ones in their own family that just got convicted and sentenced.

Let me be really clear, I know John Farrow. Didn't think highly of him or lowly of him. But when he admitted (2013) to sexually molesting children, I felt intense rage towards him. I immediately called up people I knew whose children might have been around him to make sure they knew what had happened in case they needed to address any issues with their children or now adult children.

Dylan grew up around him.

If she was a victim of molestation at the hands of Woody, I don't understand why she wouldn't be expressing something with regards to her Uncle John right now. Why she wouldn't be offering, for example, an open letter about how the adult males in her life -- plural, not just Woody -- had betrayed her, one who sexually molested her and one who sexually molested other children (plural)?

At her age and with all the years that have passed, she surely should feel the need to look out for others. But she's still self-obsessed.

Like many who were molested as children, I have low self esteem.

I can advocate on behalf of anyone but you will never find me advocating on behalf of myself (unless Elaine's scolded me over the phone about it). .

Yet Dylan who doesn't speak of the alleged assault in terms one would expect for a victim and for a victim who has had years of therapy is perfectly comfortable making demands -- personal demands -- on others.

There is no set response to molestation.

But what the letter does is crystalize the problems I've always had with this story.

Again, I no longer believe it. I don't know what happened.

As such, it's not my job to shun Woody Allen or to think that he did what Dylan's accusing him of and what the New York City judicial system didn't find suspicion of -- forget guilt, it didn't even rise to the level of suspicion.

How sexually inappropriate is or was Mia?

Questioning your child's paternity in a magazine interview?

How desperate for publicity is she?

She's clearly not desperate for the truth. Nancy could provide DNA in an instant that would determine whether or not Ronan was Sinatra's son.

If you want to know the answer, that's what you do. (Tina Sinatra would also provide DNA. I would assume Frank Jr. would but I really don't know him.)

If, however, your stalled career needs publicity, might you instead just raise it in a magazine interview in a desperate attempt to get attention?

Not unlike when you cut your hair off because Frank wouldn't take you to the party -- a reality you lied about in What Falls Away?

These are harsh words, I don't deny it.

And without all this self-created drama and nonsense, I probably would be silent right now.

But the drama's not what made me write this.

Reading Dylan's self-righteous babble, I had to grab the Vanity Fair story (well written by Maureen Orth as usual) that I had ignored because I was humiliated for Mia.

And there was the known victim.

I don't know what happened to Dylan and honestly I find her presentation so off putting that I'm no longer interested.

Who I feel sorry for is who I felt sorry for in the beginning.

Soon-Yi.

Mia hasn't raised a family, she's raised a mob.

Soon-Yi's mistake was falling in love with Woody Allen.

Why couldn't they be together?

Because Mia and Woody were a couple?

Well, according to Mia in Vanity Fair, she was f**king Frank Sinatra throughout her relationship with Woody.

So Mia can cheat on him but he can't cheat on her?

Mia can lie to Woody that Ronan's his son when she thinks it might be Frank?

Soon-Yi was Mia's daughter. She wasn't Woody's daughter.

Mia pushed him to do things with her. Soon-Yi was a shy young woman.

Who does that?

The affair comes out -- I don't remember, I'm going to guess it was on or around January 13, 1992 -- when Mia finds photos of Soon-Yi.

And everyone turns on Soon-Yi.

Sorry to break it to you, that's not a family. That's a mob.

And Mia, head of the mob, wasn't acting like a concerned mother.

Mia slapped Soon-Yi, Mia told the others to tell Soon-Yi she loved her. After she hit her. After she announced she couldn't be around her daughter.

Instead of addressing the issue -- Mia who's so comfortable with professional analysis -- sends Soon-Yi off to a summer camp?

The whole family is attacking her, they have turned against her, her mother has slapped her and cursed her and then makes it clear that she doesn't want to be around her.

Mia claims now that she was f**king Sinatra during this, so why the hell does it matter if Soon-Yi is having an affair with Woody? It's not like Mia's playing exclusive.

You're a young woman, inexperienced, who falls for a man who takes you seriously. Who among us hasn't been there? The man's involved with your mother. But he was also supposedly sleeping with Dianne Weist in the 80s and Mia looked the other way on that. And that alleged affair, for those who missed it, is why Dylan didn't include Dianne Weist in the names of people she's trying to shame into supporting her. Dylan knows that and the children who were teenagers at the time of the alleged affair knew it as well.

Mia didn't end it with Woody over the affair that she's sure happened.

Soon-Yi may have thought this would be a brief affair.

Mia has a hissy, to this day, that Soon-Yi was getting calls from Woody at the camp and that Soon-Yi left with Woody.

I'm sorry, what young woman wouldn't?

You're family has rejected you.

Mia handled Soon-Yi all wrong.

She attacked her physically, she then put up walls to prevent any reconciliation, she's then sent her off. Exiled.

What it really reminds me of was how Mia used similar manipulation tactics to isolate Dory Previn after cozying up to her but before stealing her husband Andre Previn.

Nothing Soon-Yi did with Woody Allen had a damn thing to do with Andre Previn.

He's supposed to be her father. Considering that he cheated on Dory with Mia and then cheated on Mia when he was on tour and Mia was home in England, it's really amazing that he wants to disown his daughter over an affair.

Who the hell is he to judge?

A child was entrusted to Mia and Andre. They legally adopted her. He adopted her and because she had an affair, he wants to disown her.

Soon-Yi may have had an affair that wasn't an affair that started under the best conditions. But she and Woody have been together longer than Mia was with Woody -- and longer than Mia was with Andre -- and longer than Mia was with Frank -- and way longer than Mia was with John Phillips -- the affair she lied to Frank about and part of the reason they broke up.

It's funny -- unless you grasp her personality -- how nothing's ever Mia's fault. It was because she wouldn't do The Detective with him that Frank divorced her.. (Really? And not because of the affair in NYC with ____ while shooting Rosemary's Baby?)

Considering the messed up life Mia openly lived -- I'm referring to the men in and out the door and I'm talking about men other than the names noted here, I'm talking about the cinematographer, for example -- and considering that she brought children into one scandal after another -- such as when she thought Woody was screwing her sister Tisa -- yeah, get the kids upset about their aunt -- and then later, when Woody wrote Hannah & Her Sisters, insisting this was proof that Tisa and Woody slept together?

Here's the deal, Mia. Your life where adopted children are real children, where you're sleeping with everyone but Anthony Perkins (but mainly there because the two of you hate each other the whole time you're doing Romantic Comedy on Broadway) and the children see this, where (like Joan Crawford) you try to make every boyfriend part of the family?

Live and let live, Mia.

Until you stop practicing what you've presented as core values.

If an adopted child is a real child, a true member of the family (I happen to believe they are), then anger over being replaced by a younger woman doesn't give Mia the right to cut out Soon-Yi.

She's not cancer, she's Mia's daughter.

If Mia ever loved her, Mia would either attempt to reach out for real (not, "Let me slap you, then isolate you, then exile you") or Mia would love her enough, even now, to stop the petty insults of her and let Soon-Yi live in a peace with the only family who accepts her. .

Soon-Yi has made a life, a family and a home with Woody Allen. They've been together over two decades now, they have two children.

Two adopted children.

Somewhere inside of Soon-Yi, she believes that adopted children are real children.

She learned that from Mia who could talk the talk. Mia just couldn't walk the talk.

What it looks like today is that the accusations that Mia adopted children to make herself look better are true. It looks like Mia continues to manipulate. She looks bitter and stupid because she can't shut up about Soon-Yi.

If she ever loved her daughter, you'd think she'd at least be glad Soon-Yi made a life for herself -- something she was forced to do when her family tossed her aside.

Why do things always end so badly with Mia?

Whether she's destroying an ashram in Rishikesh or a marriage, it's never her fault.

If my brother was a convicted child molester, I'm not really sure I would be accusing others. But if I were, you can be damn sure I'd be talking about my brother's actions as well.

And if my daughter was actually sexually molested, I don't think I'd be advocating for Roman Polanski.

Roman's a great director. When I knew him, I cut him slack like everyone else (because of Sharon Tate's violent murder). But when you give a young girl drugs and alcohol and then force yourself on her? There's not an excuse for that. As a victim of molestation, I will never, ever defend Roman on that.

But Mia does. She defends him and makes excuses.

Yet she wants us to believe that her daughter was molested. And she wants us to grab torches and go storming through the village or at least Central Park West.

It doesn't add up.

Mia turns 69 in a matter of days. At what point does she plan to take responsibility for her actions?

And how much more mud does she intend to drag her family name through?

But it's one thing I want you to rememberIf you ever leave, I believe I'll go insaneDarling, I'll never hear the bells againDarling, I'll never hear the bells again

In 1971, Laura Nyro recorded Gonna Take A Miracle with Labelle (Patti LaBelle, Sarah Dash and Nona Hendryx). The ten track album included many covers of classic songs including "The Bells" (video above) which was written by Marvin Gaye, Anna Gordy Gaye, Iris Gordy and Elgie Stover and was a top five R&;B hit and a top 20 pop hit in for The Originals in 1970.

Anna Gordy has passed away. The sister of Motown founder Berry Gordy, Anna was married to Grammy winning singer-songwriter Marvin Gaye for 14 years and the two were the parents of Marvin IV. With Roquel Billy Davis and her sister Gwen Gordy, Anna formed Anna Records in 1958. In 1961, the label would be absorbed by Motown Records. Prior to that, artists recording for the label included soul legend Joe Tex, David Ruffin (who would find later success as a member of The Temptations), the Falcons and Barrett Strong whose recording of Berry Gordy and Janie Bradford's "Money (That's What I Want)" would become both a smash hit and a standard for its era.

Anna and Marvin would marry in 1963. In her memoir Secrets of a Sparrow, Diana Ross notes, "The Gordy family had a unique makeup of tough and loving. The women, Anna, Gwen, Esther and even Mother Gordy, were powerful and strong at a time when few women were [. . .]"

Anna and Marvin also wrote the hit "Baby, I'm For Real" for The Originals (Michael McDonald later covered the song).

By herself she wrote David Ruffin's "I Let Love Slip Away."

She wrote many songs. With Allen Story, she wrote Stevie Wonder's "What Christmas Means To Me" and the Four Tops' "Same-O-Same-O." She and Marvin wrote Diana Ross & the Surprmes "Baby It's Love" (on the Love Child album).

Anna Gordy Gaye died at the age of 92, after raising a family, running a label, writing many songs and, taking the same page from her mother that her sisters and brothers did, giving back to the community around her. She was a trailblazer in every sense of the word.

For Diana Ross & the Supremes' Let The Sunshine in album, she, Allen Story, Lawrence Brown and Horgay Gordy wrote "I'm So Glad I Got Somebody (Like You Around)."

(I knew Anna and, like everyone who knew her, I will miss her. But the main reason I wrote this is because of the tacky, catty and sexist obit that a music 'magazine' delivered. You'd think after all this time, they'd have learned better but they still haven't.)

Friday, January 31, 2014

Friday, January 31, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's assault on Anbar continues, the White House tries to charm the KRG into giving Nouri his way, Nouri's forces appear to have a Sunni man on fire today, Secretary of State John Kerry's friend -- now being paid by taxpayers -- really wasn't suited for the job Kerry gave him, and much more.

No answer given, just silence, and the hope that, at some point, everyone will just forget.

Thursday on All Things Considered (NPR -- link is audio and text). host Robert Siegel spoke with professor Imad Shaheen and NPR's Michele Kelemen and Deborah Amos about the Middle East. Siegel used the segment to work in comments from an interview he did with Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. And presumably, we're supposed to overlook the fact that an interview was conducted and a segment not provided to showcase the interview -- and overlook that this week, the 'news' program, made time for segments on how to fix "beefy butternut squash chili," luge stories, Superbowl stories, Superbowl related stories, "funny video" stories, "a new look at George Eliot," movie reviews, book reviews, music reviews and a woman who spays animals. Due to all of that and so much more, All Things Considered didn't have time to air an interview with Saleh al-Mutlaq who met with US President Barack Obama this month. Below we'll excerpt the opinions of al-Mutlaq that made the broadcast segment.

SIEGEL: And some players in the region see something else receding:
American power and American influence. For example, in Iraq, the deputy
prime minister, Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni Muslim, says the U.S. should've
done more to create a government that Sunnis could trust. He told me
Washington should have and could have.

SALEH AL-MUTLAQ: America
is America. America is the biggest and most important country in the
world. If they are really serious in trying to enforce
reconstruction(ph) of the country, they will be able to do that.[. . .]SIEGEL: Now, you mentioned the Iraqis. I want to play something that
Saleh al-Mutlaq, the Iraqi deputy prime minister, told me. He is a Sunni
Muslim from Anbar Province and I put it to him that President Obama's
harshest critics say that the U.S. is not just leaving behind a void
that Iran might be filling, but that the U.S. is about to tilt to
Tehran, become friendly with Iran.And here's what the Iraqi deputy prime minister said.AL-MUTLAQ:
Well, I mean this is the question of everybody in the region, that
something is happening which is strange, that from all that conflict
between Iran and America and after America has given the region,
especially Iraq, to the Iranian, now they are getting on in dialogue in
order to improve their relation. And this is not only my concern. It's
the concern of everybody in the region. And it's the worry of everybody
in the region, because if you strengthen Iran to that extent, then Iran
is going to be the policeman of the region.SIEGEL: You feel that Iraq has been handed over to Iran.

SALEH EL-MUTLAQ: Definitely.

Tuesday, January14th, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq spoke in DC at the US Institute of Peace. We noted it in that day's snapshot. MP Nada al-Juburi was part of the delegation from Iraq and we noted some of her remarks at the Institute of Peace in the January 16th snapshot. Joel Wing (Musings On Iraq) has posted the video of her discussion with MP Ezzat al-Shebander that the Institute of Peace's Sarhanq Hamasaeed moderated.

Biden, then a senator, championed a more
federal system explicitly allowed by the Iraqi constitution (at the
insistence of the Kurds), devolving power from the central government in
Baghdad to the provinces. Although Biden denied it at the time, his
proposal would almost certainly have led to the de facto soft partition
of Iraq into three autonomous regions dominated by Shiites, Sunnis, and
Kurds. A similar approach in the 1990s patched together Bosnia out of
the detritus of the Balkans civil war between Serbs, Croats, and
Muslims. In a 2007 op-ed, Biden warned, "If the United States can't put
this federalism idea on track, we will have no chance for a political
settlement in Iraq and, without that, no chance for leaving Iraq without
leaving chaos behind."

He
was ahead of his time. "Biden got it dead right, and I still think
transitioning to a federal power-sharing arrangement is the only way to
stop the killing and hold Iraq together," says Leslie Gelb, former
president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who wrote the op-ed with
Biden.

No, Joe Biden didn't get it right -- dead right or otherwise -- because Joe Biden is an American citizen. It is not for him, or any other American, to determine what sort of nation-state or country Iraq should be. Self-determination is not a passing fancy, it's a cornerstone of democracy.

He was more than welcome to float the idea to the Iraqi people but he had no right to impose it. The Senate agreed with that which is why his proposal never found traction there but was instead repeatedly rejected. Had the US split Iraq into three regions, the issue would have been "The US destroyed our country further by breaking us apart in a Balkanization scheme." Though Biden did popularize the idea, he can't claim credit for it nor even just credit for applying it to Iraq. War Hawk Edward P. Joseph teamed with Brookings' Michael O'Hanlon to promote the idea in 2007. But they were basing it on the proposal of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Which would bring us back to Leslie Gelb, wouldn't it? Gelb backed the Iraq War -- and did so, he said, "to retain political and professional credibility." I don't know how much "professional credibility" there is in applauding someone for promoting your idea when you refuse to acknowledge that it was your idea. But I do know it's unethical.

I also know that if the Iraqi people had decided to split their country into a federation, it might have worked and it might not have. In other words, I know that Geld lacks the gift of premonition.

He supports the split so he thinks it would work. That doesn't mean it would work.

Since he's not an Iraqi, his continued obsession with a concept that Iraq refused to entertain is a bit of waste of time.

There's been a lot of deceit, stupidity and silence since media attention in the west returned to Iraq. Not a lot of bravery, however. Few have stepped up to the plate to offer anything of real value -- especially as Nouri al-Maliki's assault on Anbar is one War Crime after another. What happened to all the voices that spoke out when Bully Boy Bush was in offie? One of them speaks loudly today. Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark shares (at Pravda):

However, the US and UK are seemingly
remarkably selective when it comes to tyrants who "kill their own
people", and not only have failed to censure their tyrannical Iraqi
puppet, Nuri al-Maliki, but are arming him to the teeth with the same
weapons which are linked to the horrific birth defects, and cancers
throughout Iraq, which he is now using on "his own people." Moreover, if
allegations from very well informed sources that he holds an Iranian
passport are correct, to say that US-UK's despot of choice appears in a
whole new political light would be to massively understate.To facilitate Al-Maliki's assault on
Iraq's citizens, the US "rushed" seventy five Hellfire missiles to
Baghdad in mid-December. On 23rd January Iraq requested a further five
hundred Hellfires, costing $82 million - small change compared to the
$14 Billion in weapons provided by America since 2005.The AGM-114R Hellfire II, nauseatingly
named "Romeo", clocked in at: $94,000 each - in 2012. Such spending on
weaponry in a country where electricity, clean water, education and
health services have all but collapsed since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Last week an "American cargo jet loaded
with weapons" including 2,400 rockets to arm Iraqi attack helicopters
also arrived in Baghdad.(iii)

This week a contract was agreed to sell a
further twenty four AH-64E attack helicopters to Iraq "along with spare
parts and maintenance, in a massive $6.2 Billion deal." With them comes
the reinvasion of Iraq, with: "hundreds of Americans" to be shipped out
"to oversee the training and fielding of equipment", some are "US
government employees", read military, plus a plethora of "contractors",
read mercenaries. (iv)

According to Jane's Defence Weekly, on
November 15th 2013 Iraq also took delivery of: " its first shipment of
highly advanced Mi-35 attack helicopters as part of a $4.3 Billion arms
purchase from Russia", of an order of: "about 40 Mi-35 and 40 Mi-28
Havoc attack helicopters."

The all to "attack his own people" in
the guise of defeating "Al Qaida" in Anbar province and elsewhere where
the people have been peacefully protesting a near one man regime of
torture, sectarianism, kangaroo courts which sentence victims who have
also had confessions extracted under torture.

Along with being a former US Attorney General (and the son of a Supreme Court justice), Clark founded the International Action Center. Ramsey Clark used his voice to call out the Iraq War, even before it started. It's a shame so many others can't find their voices. CORRECTION: My apologies to Felicity Aruthnot. She wrote the article I wrongly credited to Ramsey Clark. Pravada's byline isn't clear (use the link), I was reading her piece at Dissident Voice this morning -- 2-1-2014 -- and the byline is very clear. My apologies to her and we'll note this in Monday's Iraq snapshot.

The State Dept has continued to ignore Iraq. Which really just makes people wonder where Jonathan Winer is? Remember last September when State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf declared, "The State Department has appointed a Senior Advisor for MEK Resettlement, Jonathan Winer, to oversee our efforts to help resettle the residents of Camp Hurriya to safe, permanent, and secure locations outside of Iraq, in addition to those countries, such as Albania, that have admirably assisted the United Nations in this important humanitarian mission."

The US taxpayers are paying Winer's salary. At what point does he start giving reports on his progress or lack of it?

Maybe at the same time that the press starts why a lobbyist got this post to begin with?

Does he have special language skills?

Nope.

Does Winer have a history of working on problems like these?

In recent years, he's been a lobbyist for APCO Worldwide and Alston & Bird.

During the Clinton administration, he was in the State Dept. From 1994 to 2000, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement. While that is State Dept experience, it's really not experience that's going to help resettle the Ashraf community.

And it's not just me who notices that he lacks the skills for this posting, he apparently does at well.

(AML/CFT is Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism.)

Anyone see anything there about refugees or resettling?

Nope.

Because he has no experience.

So why was he picked?

Oh, that's right -- because of who he knows. From 1985 to 1994, he was Senator John Kerry's chief legal counsel. Well it's good that John's able to find employment for his friends but at what point does the American people see results for the salary they're paying Jonathan Winer?

But what's Winer's salary -- even if he's unable to produce results -- when you compare it to all the other US tax dollars the US government can't account for?

The Cabinet approved today
January 28, 2014 on Iraq's contribution with the amount of half a
million dollars to a trust fund proposed by the UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon on October 23, 2014 to cover costs related to transporting the
residents of Camp Liberty (formerly known as Ashraf) to a third country.

Iraq
fulfilled its international and humanitarian obligations to transport
Ashraf residents to Camp Liberty, waiting for the implementation of
international commitments to resettle the Camp Liberty residents outside
Iraq.

The
government's decision reaffirms its position on the need to resettle
the residents of Camp Liberty in third countries outside Iraq according
to the commitments and understandings between Iraq and the United
Nations.

Why has the State Dept had nothing to say about this? Since the western press hasn't reported on it, it's possible the State Dept doesn't know about it. But when you've appointed someone to be over this issue for the State Dept and they're taking taxpayer dollars for this job, there's need to be a little more visibility.

Especially when nasty rumors are swirling that Jonathan Winer's not doing any work but is using the post to enrich his pockets outside the government.

For Immediate ReleaseThe U.S. Embassy in Baghdad
strongly condemns the January 30 terrorist attack in Baghdad on Iraq’s Ministry
of Transportation. We extend our sincere condolences to the
families of the victims and hope for a rapid recovery for those who were
injured.

The United
States stands with the Iraqi people and will continue its robust support of the
Government of Iraq in its fight against terrorism.

AFP reports that the Iraqi ministries released their figure for January death tolls today (apparently before the day was over) and they found 1,013 people had died in violence. The move resulted in this Tweet from Jon Williams.

Press TV offers this breakdown, "According to the figures, compiled by
the ministries of health, interior and defense and released on Friday,
1,013 people were killed in January, including 795 civilians, 122
soldiers and 96 policemen."

Historically, the ministries -- two of which remain headless and controlled by Nouri (Ministry of Defnese and Ministry of Interior) -- have provided an undercount. Iraq Body Count hasn't yet posted their toll for January. Jason Ditz notes Antiwar.com's count is 1,840. Ditz also notes that Iraq's toll is 1,202.

When Nouri's forces announce they've killed "terrorists" -- usually in the midst of mass arrests -- we don't call them "terrorists." We call them "suspects" because that's what they are. There was no judicial finding. How dare AFP leave out the group the Iraqi government calls "militants."

I hope we all get that Nelson Mandela was a "militant" and a "terrorist" in the eyes of the now disgraced South African government.

AFP acts like a tool of the Iraqi government and not like a news outlet.

1,202 deaths from violence is what the Iraqi government announced -- but AFP couldn't report that, could they.

Good for Jason Ditz for catching that. We'll return to the death toll for January in Monday's snapshot when we'll have two other outlets to note.

Despite the huge death toll and the increased violence, Iraqi Spring MC notes protests took place today in Samarra, Tikrit, Rawa, Anbar and, below, in Baiji.

Since December 21, 2012,
protests have been ongoing in Iraq. Nouri's earlier efforts to stop the
protests haven't stopped them. His threats, his attacks, none of it
has worked. Now if he'd actually listened to the grievances and
addressed those? Things might be a lot different right now.

This week, the Center for Strategic & International Studies published a report by Anthony H. Cordesman and Sam Khazi entitled [PDF format warning] "Iraq in Crisis."

It's a lenghthy report with a lot of important passages. But let's focus on the protests. The report notes:

Maliki's increasing
repression and
centralization of power
over the course of 2010
-
2013 fueled
the growth of
Al Qaeda
and other Sunni extremist movements
in spite of what appeared to be Al
Qaida's defeat in fighting from 2005 to
2008.
The US military reported in July 2010 there were
only approximately 200 "hard core" fighters
left.

And:At the same time, AQI/ISIS increased its presence in Anbar in Western Iraq, and made use o
f its
new facilities in Syria. It evidently did reach out to Sunni tribal leaders in the West, and fighters
in
the Sons of Iraq.
It also formed cadres of trained fighters that had trucks with heavy machine
guns and mortars, gaining a level of armed mobility it not demonstrated in combat even during the
peak fighting in 2005
-- 2008. It was these shifts that allowed it to invade Fallujah and Ramadi in late December 2013, and exploit
the power vacuum Maliki left when he removed the army as a result of popular anger against is
use against Sunni protest camps. Maliki effectively empowered AQI/ISIS by arresting Ahmed al-Alwani and killing his brother on December 28,
2013,
and
by
using a large-scale military operation
to shut down the large anti-
government protest camp near Ramadi two days later. Many of the
Sunni tribes then mobilized their fighters, and
the resulting
fighting that persuaded Maliki to
withdraw the army from Anbar’s cities
and to try to rely on a weak and corrupt Iraqi police force.
As a result, Al Qaeda was able to occupy key parts of Fallujah and Ramadi a force of some 75 to
100 armed trucks and less than 1000 fighters

At some point, the White House is going to have to start seriously confronting Nouri al-Maliki.

For the record, acting as Nouri tough-guy to get Nouri's way on the oil? That's not standing up to Nouri. That's cowering before the tyrant.

And the White House did that again today.

The White House

Office of the Vice President

For Immediate Release

January 31, 2014

Readout of Vice President Biden's Call with President of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region Masoud Barzani

Vice President Biden spoke today with President of the Iraqi
Kurdistan Region Masoud Barzani. The Vice President emphasized the
importance of the relationship between the United States and the Iraqi
Kurdistan Region, and stressed the United States’ commitment to
strengthening its partnership with Iraq. The Vice President and
President Barzani both confirmed the need for close cooperation between
the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Iraqi government to reach
agreement on a way forward on the matter of energy exports and revenue
sharing. The Vice President and President Barzani are committed to
supporting efforts to confront the ongoing challenge of terrorism in
Iraq.

- End of Sectarian Shia rule
- the re-writing of the Iraqi constitution (drafted by the Americans and Iranians)
- the end to arbitrary killings and detention, rape and torture of all detainees on basis of sect alone and their release
- the end of discriminatory policies in employment, education, etc based on sect
- the provision of government services to all
- the end of corruption
- no division between Shias and Sunnis, a one Islam for all Iraqi Muslims and a one Iraq for all Iraqis.

National Iraqi News Agency reports three rockets attacked the airport today. Arab News points out, "Air traffic was not disrupted, but the ability of militants to strike
such a site is likely to heighten concerns about the vulnerability of
Iraq’s vital infrastructure as security deteriorates across the country."

Nouri's assault on Anbar has only demonstrated (a) how weak security actually is and (b) how inept Nouri is.

Nouri's assault is a long string of War Crimes. From Geneva International Centre for Justice's "Stop al-Maliki brutality against civilians" (BRussells Tribunal):On behalf of a coalition of NGOs Geneva International Centre
for Justice (GICJ) has sent an urgent appeal to the International
community and UN bodies following its appeal
from 13 January 2014 in view of the horribly deteriorating human rights
situation and the continuous brutal attacks against civilians in the
province of al-Anbar/ Iraq.
Since 22 December 2013, an operation led by Iraqi government forces is
under way in the al-Anbar province, which, although initially under the
pretext to combat terrorists hiding in the desert, quickly turned into a
full scale military attack against residential areas with heavy
artillery, tanks and air force. Residential neighbourhoods came under
shelling; hospitals and schools were damaged, over hundred civilians
killed so far and even injured fired upon.

Symbolic for the atrocities committed by the army was a video
published on several Iraqi satellite TVs on 22 January 2014, showing how
al-Maliki forces drag the dead body of a young Tribesman by tying his
leg to a military vehicle. Until this day government forces are surrounding the cities in the
province of al-Anbar, the biggest of them Ramadi, Fallujah, Karma and
Khalidiya, cutting of all vital supplies. This happens under the pretext
that these cities have been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda, although the
citizens themselves have repeatedly and clearly refuted such claims.
Countless people have already fled in fear of the government forces, who
are known for their indiscriminate brutality against civilians. The
international community must immediately call for a halt of this highly
disproportionate use of force.

On YouTube video has surfaced of Nouri's forces today . . . next to a man being burned alive. Did they set the Sunni male on fire? It appears they're not concerned with putting out the fire so it's fair to conclude they started it. It's the sort of government cruelty that's led Iraqis to protest in the first place.

- End of Sectarian Shia rule
- the re-writing of the Iraqi constitution (drafted by the Americans and Iranians)
- the end to arbitrary killings and detention, rape and torture of all detainees on basis of sect alone and their release
- the end of discriminatory policies in employment, education, etc based on sect
- the provision of government services to all
- the end of corruption
- no division between Shias and Sunnis, a one Islam for all Iraqi Muslims and a one Iraq for all Iraqis.

His assault has been a 'success' -- he's lost parts of Baghdad, he's lost Falluja and Ramadi, he's seen two government ministries attacked in Baghdad, over 1062 people killed this month, and now an attack on Baghdad International.

National Iraqi News Agency reports three rockets attacked the airport today. Arab News points out, "Air traffic was not disrupted, but the ability of militants to strike
such a site is likely to heighten concerns about the vulnerability of
Iraq’s vital infrastructure as security deteriorates across the country."

Nouri's assault on Anbar has only demonstrated (a) how weak security actually is and (b) how inept Nour is.

Nouri's assault is a long string of War Crimes. From Geneva International Centre for Justice's "Stop al-Maliki brutality against civilians" (BRussells Tribunal):On behalf of a coalition of NGOs Geneva International Centre
for Justice (GICJ) has sent an urgent appeal to the International
community and UN bodies following its appeal
from 13 January 2014 in view of the horribly deteriorating human rights
situation and the continuous brutal attacks against civilians in the
province of al-Anbar/ Iraq.
Since 22 December 2013, an operation led by Iraqi government forces is
under way in the al-Anbar province, which, although initially under the
pretext to combat terrorists hiding in the desert, quickly turned into a
full scale military attack against residential areas with heavy
artillery, tanks and air force. Residential neighbourhoods came under
shelling; hospitals and schools were damaged, over hundred civilians
killed so far and even injured fired upon.

Symbolic for the atrocities committed by the army was a video
published on several Iraqi satellite TVs on 22 January 2014, showing how
al-Maliki forces drag the dead body of a young Tribesman by tying his
leg to a military vehicle. Until this day government forces are surrounding the cities in the
province of al-Anbar, the biggest of them Ramadi, Fallujah, Karma and
Khalidiya, cutting of all vital supplies. This happens under the pretext
that these cities have been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda, although the
citizens themselves have repeatedly and clearly refuted such claims.
Countless people have already fled in fear of the government forces, who
are known for their indiscriminate brutality against civilians. The
international community must immediately call for a halt of this highly
disproportionate use of force.

The following community sites -- plus Susan's On the Edge, Antiwar.com, Jody Watley and Chocolate City -- updated last night and today:

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.